|
Concealed Carry Discussion General discussion regarding CCW/LTC in California |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Sacramento County CCW New Restrictions/Policy Changes
So I'm taking my CCW 4 Hour Refresher Course right now. The instructor passed out new restrictions. One of which is
"During any law enforcement contact, you are required to disclose your status as a CCW permit holder and you must disclose whether or not you are carrying a weapon on your person or in your vehicle" |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
It's worded a little differently, but they print it as a restriction on the permit. Started a few months ago.
__________________
”Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.” ~Unknown |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Nothing, but so what? Of all the possible restrictions an issuing agency can legally put on there, this one seems pretty benign to me. I can't see getting upset over this. Do you really want to withhold that info if you are officially contacted by law enforcement? If you can avoid possible complications by disclosing that you're legally carrying, why wouldn't you?
__________________
Like granular silica through an equatorially constricted chronographic vessel, so are the circadian georotations of our metabolic persistences. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
In red ink
Yup, at the bottom of the LTC issued in Sacramento County you will see...
"If contacted by law enforcement and carrying a concealed weapon, you must advise the officer of the presence of a firearm either on your person or otherwise present." Personally, I don't have an issue with this; as, I've always planned to inform a LEO of my concealed piece in the event of a traffic stop. (I respect the opinion of those who disagree with me on this, I know there is some controversy here.) .
__________________
Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. - - Sir Winston Churchill, Speech, 1941, |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
As far as notifying law enforcement... it is none of their business if I carry or not. If I tell them I'm carrying then can they check my weapon? What is the point of that? That poses more danger imo than if I disclosed nothing. If I were on my way to the range and were stopped I would not normally let any member of law enforcement know I had any firearms in my vehicle. I wouldn't let them search my vehicle. It's none of their business. Now with this CCW I am not only required to notify them that I am a CCW Holder, but that I have this firearm or that firearm in my vehicle. Firearms could be considered probable cause? If so then I can basically be treated as if I am on search and seizure probation/parole. I am no expert on CA Laws, so if someone can clarify what to say to avoid this situation if stopped it would be greatly appreciated. Simply stating the obvious of "don't get pulled over in the first place" will not be of any help. I have only been pulled over twice in the past five years with no tickets issued in over 7 years. Both traffic stops were for no reasonable cause. Both times what I would consider harassment ensued. I have never been arrested. Never been convicted of a crime. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kassP7zI0qc Last edited by xounlistedxox; 11-15-2012 at 10:00 PM.. Reason: fixing link |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Like granular silica through an equatorially constricted chronographic vessel, so are the circadian georotations of our metabolic persistences. Last edited by Old_Bald_Guy; 11-16-2012 at 3:51 PM.. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Okay, but your immediate issue is how to retain your license. I don't buy into slippery slope arguments all that often, but even if I did, it'd be purely academic to a nuts and bolts discussion of how to comply with the restrictions.
__________________
Like granular silica through an equatorially constricted chronographic vessel, so are the circadian georotations of our metabolic persistences. |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
This particular restriction is a pretty painless one. It's easy to comply with, and I would do it even if it were not a requirement. Yes, it is a little strange to have to advise when you're NOT carrying, but whatever--it's the requirement and I'll follow it.
__________________
Like granular silica through an equatorially constricted chronographic vessel, so are the circadian georotations of our metabolic persistences. |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Your idea is to stand up for your rights by violating the restrictions on your license and then losing it?
__________________
Like granular silica through an equatorially constricted chronographic vessel, so are the circadian georotations of our metabolic persistences. |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
What do you plan to accomplish by that?
__________________
Like granular silica through an equatorially constricted chronographic vessel, so are the circadian georotations of our metabolic persistences. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
How do you think the civil rights movement started? If they didn't stand up to do something things would be much different now.
Am I supposed to walk up to every officer I see and make sure to tell them that I am a CCW Holder and if I am carrying? Just incase they might notice it and then take away my CCW because I didn't tell them about it before hand? I see LEO's quite often(probably at least once a week sometimes more) at work, out eating etc |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
I could sworn I read in the CA handbook that if an LEO asks to see your weapon to verify that there isn't one in the chamber, you'd have to surrender it to the LEO.
I don't see how this is any different if he asks to see your gun or not upon being aware that you are a permit holder. How else is he supposed know to verify that you don't have a round in the chamber. It's illegal otherwise to carry without a permit. |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Like granular silica through an equatorially constricted chronographic vessel, so are the circadian georotations of our metabolic persistences. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
I have read and understand it. I also see the potential for the egotistical LEO's to be able to cause problems with this addition. Like the video above.
|
#19
|
||||
|
||||
Anyone of the mind to jack you up is gonna do it with or without this restriction. The chances of that happening are low, but if you ignore the restriction they may be slightly less low. I don't think you're clear in what "contacted by law enforcement" means (based on your comment about going up to every cop you see).
__________________
Like granular silica through an equatorially constricted chronographic vessel, so are the circadian georotations of our metabolic persistences. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#21
|
||||
|
||||
I was stopped recently--an example of being contacted by law enforcement (radar...going a little too fast). First time in decades. I handed my LTC to the officer along with my DL. Once he saw it, I told him I was required to notify him even though I wasn't carrying at the time (on the way to work, where I never carry). He said he appreciated being told. No big deal. Very low key. When I fill out my renewal application, I'll list this contact on the form.
People get unnecessarily worked up about this. I would advise even if it were not required. Makes a lot more sense than subjecting yourself to the results of it being discovered w/o notification.
__________________
Like granular silica through an equatorially constricted chronographic vessel, so are the circadian georotations of our metabolic persistences. Last edited by Old_Bald_Guy; 11-16-2012 at 5:37 PM.. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Stand up for our rights how? I haven't seen any proposals from you in this thread, yet. All I've seen so far is disagreement with the restrictions.
|
#23
|
||||
|
||||
He doesn't like the restriction. There's nothing he can do except comply or not comply. If he doesn't comply, he risks complications at the time of the contact, and loss of his license. If that happens, he won't get it back, because the restriction is legal.
__________________
Like granular silica through an equatorially constricted chronographic vessel, so are the circadian georotations of our metabolic persistences. |
#24
|
||||
|
||||
1. As a matter of civilian and officer safety, any time you're carrying and your asked for ID you should hand the officer ID and your LTC. I would be loathe to announce that you're carrying to a LEO, but I'm never loathe to hand them a permit and then answer their questions about your carry status once they are asking you based on your license.
2. Is this a valid government requirement? It may be. It's a very small burden on the right to carry and not irrational. Having the officer know that if you frisks you he's going to find a gun and have him not in the mind to freak out keeps your blood quantity high. Right now is not the time to be attacking a virtually shall issue county. That time might come after we get the cases to SCOTUS (and recall this county ducked those cases - hence your ability to carry - be thankful.) After the SCOTUS decision we'll re-asses. For now enjoy carrying and exercising your rights in a way that many of the residents of other populous counties do not. -Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman Chairman, California Gun Rights Foundation DONATE NOW to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @cgfgunrights on Twitter. Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization. I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly! "The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
|
#25
|
||||
|
||||
I do enjoy my right to carry for living in sac county .
Does this new rule say only when asked for id? Or if your next to with someone , in car or street you are supposed to say only...I am armed !...or sir i have an ltc and its on my person : ) |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I asked this question of the guy who issued my permit in Fresno, and he clarified that it is only official contact that they are interested in. Thus, they mean when an officer is talking to you on official business. Casual contact such as "hi, how are things?" when you pass at Starbucks are definitely not what they mean, here in Fresno. |
#27
|
||||
|
||||
This has been hashed, rehashed, and supermeta-hashed in previous threads, so I'm not sure what else can be added, but the Starbucks scenario is what I immediately thought of when I read the "what am I supposed to do, go up to every cop I see..." statement.
Casual communication (Like when you need to get past the officer in line and you say, "Excuse me, may I get through the line so I can grab some napkins from the dispenser on the counter, because my triple super-caff latte grande vente foamy pumpkin mocha is sticking in my mustache?"), there's no need to show him your LTC.
__________________
Like granular silica through an equatorially constricted chronographic vessel, so are the circadian georotations of our metabolic persistences. Last edited by Old_Bald_Guy; 11-17-2012 at 9:25 AM.. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Thank all of you guys for sharing your insight and opinions. I just wrote a detailed email to the Sacramento County CCW email. I took all of the questions in this thread and anything else I could think of and sent it directly to them. They have been pretty good about getting back to me in a timely fashion previously.
|
#31
|
||||
|
||||
I have seen people on here and other sites claim difficulty with law enforcement for both disclosing & not disclosing they have a permit.
Some officers may take your disclosing that you have a permit as some sly way of trying to get out of a ticket and other times when people have not disclosed their permit and it was discovered it did not go well. I see no reason an issuing agency should make disclosure mandatory other than as a means of maintianing some sort of egotistical control over the people. It is my opinion that there should be no disclosure requirement and that decision should be left to the individual to make that determination based upon the situation.
__________________
F@$% Joe Biden Quote:
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Lately I have turned into a pro gun fanatic of sorts. I am now as pro gun as DiFi is anti gun. I find that any restriction is 100% unreasonable. If government agencies are not required to tell me that they are carrying a concealed firearm, then I should not be required to tell them that I am carrying a firearm. If they need an AR15, a shotgun and a pistol all with standard capacity magazines and no bullet button in every partol car, so do we as citizens need these weapons in our cars. We are in the same world. If they need it, so do I. I am tired of pro gunners constantly talking about how some restrictions are reasonable. How do you think we got to where we are now with all of these ridiculous laws? The generations before me have failed. Now it is our time to take it all back. You give the anti's an inch they will take more than a mile my friends. |
#34
|
||||
|
||||
If you want a thread to voice your disagreement, okay, that can serve a purpose. A little venting can be good for the blood pressure. Your question in your second post, however, indicates that you want to know what can be done about SSD's restriction. The answer is nothing, right now (see post 24). You don't like that answer, but it's an accurate one.
Quote:
__________________
Like granular silica through an equatorially constricted chronographic vessel, so are the circadian georotations of our metabolic persistences. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I recall reading somewhere that per capita we have more prisoners in the USA than anywhere else in the world. If that is true I don't believe this idea(stated above) is too far fetched. |
#36
|
||||
|
||||
We have a larger percentage of people in prison than most other countries; not sure exactly where we rank. A significant factor in that is "war" on drugs. The "government will make more crimes felonies in order to get our guns" argument, where's the evidence of such a radical plan?
__________________
Like granular silica through an equatorially constricted chronographic vessel, so are the circadian georotations of our metabolic persistences. Last edited by Old_Bald_Guy; 11-18-2012 at 9:14 AM.. Reason: Replaced "for" with "of." |
#37
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
If you have a permit, there is no longer a need to check the chamber because it doesn't matter whether the firearm is loaded or not -- you aren't in violation of the loaded firearm law.
__________________
Nationwide Master List of Current 2A Cases, courtesy of Al Norris @ TFL. Reloading Clubs: SF, East Bay Case Status: Peña v. Cid (Handgun Roster). SF v. 44Mag (Mag Parts Kits). Bauer v. Harris (DROS Fees). Davis v. LA (CCW policy). Jackson v. SF (Ammo/Storage). Teixeira (FFL Zoning). First Unitarian v. NSA (Privacy). Silvester (Waiting Period). Schoepf (DROS Delay). Haynie (AW ban). SFVPOA v. SF (10+ mag possession ban). Bear in Public: Drake (3CA); Moore (7CA); Richards, Peruta, McKay (9CA). |
#38
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
In this particular case where I am assisting an officer, would we have to divulge that we are armed? P.S. - I just watched that video. OMG. @ 13:28 the officer says, "You know what I should have done? I tell you what I should have done. As soon as I saw your gun, I shoulda taken two steps back, pulled my glock 40, and just put 10 bullets in your *** and let you drop. And I wouldn't have lost any sleep! Do you understand me? And he [his partner] would've been a nice witness as I executed you, because you are stupid!" I hope any officers that read this see that as a perfect example of how NOT to be. Such a sad state we are in if our police across America are like this (and I know people are genuinely good so most of them aren't....at least I am hoping). If I was a police officer, I'd write in to that department and express my embarrassment and disappointment to his behavior with this citizen.
__________________
"I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"- Patrick Henry. Our Founders Views Regarding the 2nd Amendment - Right to Keep and Bear Arms |
#39
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The US also refrains from executing arbitrary segments of its population, which accounts for some countries' lower prison populations. The president of Iran said that there is no homosexuality in his country -- since the punishment is death, it's not a big mystery why there might be a skew in the population. Saddam Hussein gassed his Kurds, while Che Guevara and the Castro brothers schwacked their way to lower prison populations as well. In the US, we provide prisoners with cable TV and sex change operations. Once upon a time, a $1000 fine was a big deal. A ticket for driving without insurance is now more than that. We went from a few dozen federal crimes in 1900 to about 5,000 or so today. Much of the conduct that used to be normal is now a felony, in many cases because the traditional common law mens rea requirement has been eliminated. This has produced some very asinine results. Do you ever buy lobster? Make sure it comes in the proper packaging, and check Honduran export laws. U.S v. McNab, 331 F.3d 1228 (2003). In relation to voting rights, the left calls it the "new Jim Crow." With modern technology, vast numbers of new crimes, selective enforcement, and the ability to tax you to pay for it all, a properly placed politician can take out opponents using law enforcement assets. With all that in mind, do you think Sen. Leland Yee and his sidekick honestly haven't considered imposing arbitrary laws to unfairly ensnare as many gun owners as possible with a BS felony?
__________________
Nationwide Master List of Current 2A Cases, courtesy of Al Norris @ TFL. Reloading Clubs: SF, East Bay Case Status: Peña v. Cid (Handgun Roster). SF v. 44Mag (Mag Parts Kits). Bauer v. Harris (DROS Fees). Davis v. LA (CCW policy). Jackson v. SF (Ammo/Storage). Teixeira (FFL Zoning). First Unitarian v. NSA (Privacy). Silvester (Waiting Period). Schoepf (DROS Delay). Haynie (AW ban). SFVPOA v. SF (10+ mag possession ban). Bear in Public: Drake (3CA); Moore (7CA); Richards, Peruta, McKay (9CA). |
#40
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
Quote:
Quote:
I'm aware of this case. Do you have evidence of this on a large scale? I'd bet not. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Like granular silica through an equatorially constricted chronographic vessel, so are the circadian georotations of our metabolic persistences. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|